Champakian
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Posts
- 13,119
There are several brands, a myriad if one goes back to the times of
emperors and kings, of collectivism. Marxism, Communism and
Socialism are collectivist philosophies that are firmly united in theory
and differ only in minor differences of implementation molded by
the precedent form of rule, location, era and other geopolitical
states existent in opposition, coalition or strict neutrality. The
equivalent in these political debates/discussions is the parsing of the
Democrat and Republican parties as being some sort of polar
opposites when it fact, they are pretty much both nothing more than
slight variations on a theme by peoples who have a shared
expectation of the role and scope of government, some want more,
some want less, some want no change, but very rare is the desire
for a radical change in the form of governance. Good or bad, it is
familiar and peoples are most comfortable with the familiar, which
explains why the -isms are comfortably embraced by peoples
formerly ruled by various forms of tyranny in Europe and other
continents whereas the very notion is rejected by the peoples who
left those locals for the Americas where the rule of, by, and for the
people was established and now no other would be long tolerated
or endured.
This is just how I see it, feel free to discuss and disagree but please
check your rancor and ascription at the door, take it to another thread
or start one of your own dedicated to proving how brave, enlightened
and Rickles you are (/can be) while pretending that your fellow posters
dropped into that thread just to get a load of you. Feel free to engage
in your own brand of false expertise, but please, in the name of the
Gods and Buddhas, don’t Google up and subsequently cut and paste
the definitions that you prefer. Originality of thought is valued most.
As the old proverb states: There is a mountain and at the bottom of
the mountain are many paths and many guides. All paths lead to the
top of the mountain.
emperors and kings, of collectivism. Marxism, Communism and
Socialism are collectivist philosophies that are firmly united in theory
and differ only in minor differences of implementation molded by
the precedent form of rule, location, era and other geopolitical
states existent in opposition, coalition or strict neutrality. The
equivalent in these political debates/discussions is the parsing of the
Democrat and Republican parties as being some sort of polar
opposites when it fact, they are pretty much both nothing more than
slight variations on a theme by peoples who have a shared
expectation of the role and scope of government, some want more,
some want less, some want no change, but very rare is the desire
for a radical change in the form of governance. Good or bad, it is
familiar and peoples are most comfortable with the familiar, which
explains why the -isms are comfortably embraced by peoples
formerly ruled by various forms of tyranny in Europe and other
continents whereas the very notion is rejected by the peoples who
left those locals for the Americas where the rule of, by, and for the
people was established and now no other would be long tolerated
or endured.
This is just how I see it, feel free to discuss and disagree but please
check your rancor and ascription at the door, take it to another thread
or start one of your own dedicated to proving how brave, enlightened
and Rickles you are (/can be) while pretending that your fellow posters
dropped into that thread just to get a load of you. Feel free to engage
in your own brand of false expertise, but please, in the name of the
Gods and Buddhas, don’t Google up and subsequently cut and paste
the definitions that you prefer. Originality of thought is valued most.
As the old proverb states: There is a mountain and at the bottom of
the mountain are many paths and many guides. All paths lead to the
top of the mountain.
